RE: [issue 6432] - a modest proposal

Hi Doug,
OK, help me out here, please.


Ø  We have two different ways of expressing how/where to send a message(s) within the same spec.
We believe there is only one specific mechanism.  Can you please articulate the two ways that the spec currently has for expressing how/where to send a message?


Ø  We're moving towards one way.
Can you please articulate the one way that you are trying to move us towards?

--Geoff

From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 12:50 PM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: Re: [issue 6432] - a modest proposal


Yves,
  Actually, what you describe is what we have now.  We have two different ways of
expressing how/where to send a message(s) within the same spec.  We're moving
towards one way.  And, in doing so we're moving towards having it be consistent with
all other WS-* specs.  Code reuse!  No specialized "message sending" code needed
just for WS-Eventing.  That's even better for interoperability.

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com<mailto:dug@us.ibm.com>
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.

Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org<mailto:ylafon@w3.org>>

04/10/2009 03:33 PM

To

Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com<mailto:bob@freunds.com>>

cc

David Snelling <David.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com<mailto:David.Snelling@UK.Fujitsu.com>>, Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com<mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>>, Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com<mailto:asirveda@microsoft.com>>, Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>>

Subject

Re: [issue 6432] - a modest proposal







On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Bob Freund wrote:

> Would it be too bold to suggest folks consider to move NotifyTo to be a child
> of Subscribe?
> that way, then Delivery could be used (as an xs:Any) extension point, used by
> other specifications to mean anything they want at at cost of merely setting
> a SOAP mU header on delivery to get the fault behavior.  Of course, the fault
> would change from modeNotRecognized to SOAP mU Fault, but the other stuff
> would still work.
> Is that half-way-ish approach that folks could consider?

I am wondering if the outcome of this is to allow two incompatible ways of
doing roughly the same thing in the same specification; and my question
is... what is the story for interoperability?

--
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

        ~~Yves